> That is your interpretation that that is what they believed. I believe that it is obvious
> that the description of the flood is global. The question is, which interpretation is
> right? I believe that the answer can be found in how the rest of the Bible interprets the
> flood. The answer cannot be found in science. The dictum for us to follow is to let the
> Bible interpret itself. How did Jesus present it? He compared it to his Second Coming.
> If the Flood was a local event, is his Second Coming to be merely a local event too? Was
> Jesus, the Word, the Creator God, confused about or ignorant of the true facts? We are
> counseled to go "to the law and the testimony" to discern if someone is teaching truth or
> error. We are to compare the new with the old (not the other way around), to see if the
> new is correct. We are not counseled to turn to man's new understandings of the world to
> find truth.
>

The comparison between the Second Coming and the Flood concerns the
unexpectedness of both events. Read the context. You can reach some pretty
ridiculous conclusions when you try to make comparisons beyond those that
are intended.